Memeorandum

February 02, 2012

Regulating Sugar

CNN and CBS report on a push to regulate sugar like alcohol and tobacco. From CBS:

Should the government regulate sugar, just like it regulates alcohol and tobacco?

A new commentary published online in the Feb. 1 issue of Nature says sugar is just as "toxic" for people as the other two, so the government should step in to curb its consumption.

The United Nations announced in September that chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes contribute to 35 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the commentary. The U.N. pegged tobacco, alcohol, and diet as big risk factors that contributed to this death rate.

Two of those are regulated by governments, "leaving one of the primary culprits behind this worldwide health crisis unchecked," the authors, Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, argued.

They said that over the past 50 years, sugar consumption has tripled worldwide. That's also helped contribute to the obesity epidemic - so much so that there are 30 percent more obese people in this world than there are malnourished people.

Author Robert Lustig is a YouTube hero for his long lecture on the evils of sugar. Gary Taubes described Dr. Lustig's thinking in a NY Times magazine article, "Is Sugar Toxic?". The gist of the gist - fructose, half of the common sucrose molecule, is metabolized differently from glucose, the normal constituent of other starchy foods. Our bodies just weren't designed to process the amounts of fructose people routinely consume these days, and the results are visible everywhere.

Britain's annual per capita consumption of sugar was 4lbs in 1704, 18lbs in 1800, 90lbs in 1901 - a 22-fold increase to the point where Britons had the highest sugar intake in Europe.

Here in the US we are up to about 150 lbs per person per year, up about 50% from 1950. Set against that is the Australian Paradox - since 1980 obesity Down Under has tripled while sugar consumption has fallen (Or not - see "But Then Again" below]. Hmm... is anyone going to let a bit of science come between them and a new batch of regulations and taxes?

Around the country and the world we have governments looking for new revenue sources and new ways to control health care costs. Can a tax on sugar be far away?

The New England Journal of Medicine took a look in 2009; they kept it simple by evaluating a tax on sugar-sweetened sodas. First, the economic rationale:

Economists agree that government intervention in a market is warranted when there are “market failures” that result in less-than-optimal production and consumption.29,30 Several market failures exist with respect to sugar-sweetened beverages. First, because many persons do not fully appreciate the links between consumption of these beverages and health consequences, they make consumption decisions with imperfect information. These decisions are likely to be further distorted by the extensive marketing campaigns that advertise the benefits of consumption. A second failure results from time-inconsistent preferences (i.e., decisions that provide short-term gratification but long-term harm). This problem is exacerbated in the case of children and adolescents, who place a higher value on present satisfaction while more heavily discounting future consequences. Finally, financial “externalities” exist in the market for sugar-sweetened beverages in that consumers do not bear the full costs of their consumption decisions. Because of the contribution of the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity, as well as the health consequences that are independent of weight, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages generates excess health care costs. Medical costs for overweight and obesity alone are estimated to be $147 billion — or 9.1% of U.S. health care expenditures — with half these costs paid for publicly through the Medicare and Medicaid programs.31

I like to consider myself a free markets/consumer sovereignty kind of guy, but with sugar the collective decision making seems to be deplorable. Let's note that sugar is arguably addictive, which boosts the rationale for regulation. And with national health programs, we are all our brother's keeper or at least, bill-payer. If other people's illnesses are affecting my Medicare coverage and taxes, well, I have a right to squeak up, yes? This is just life on the slippery slope towards the socialization of everything.

On to the revenue potential, estimated at roughly $15 billion per year:

We propose an excise tax of 1 cent per ounce for beverages that have any added caloric sweetener.

...A tax of 1 cent per ounce of beverage would increase the cost of a 20-oz soft drink by 15 to 20%. The effect on consumption can be estimated through research on price elasticity (i.e., consumption shifts produced by price). The price elasticity for all soft drinks is in the range of −0.8 to −1.0.33 (Elasticity of −0.8 suggests that for every 10% increase in price, there would be a decrease in consumption of 8%, whereas elasticity of −1.0 suggests that for every 10% increase in price, there would be a decrease in consumption of 10%.) Even greater price effects are expected from taxing only sugar-sweetened beverages, since some consumers will switch to diet beverages. With the use of a conservative estimate that consumers would substitute calories in other forms for 25% of the reduced calorie consumption, an excise tax of 1 cent per ounce would lead to a minimum reduction of 10% in calorie consumption from sweetened beverages, or 20 kcal per person per day, a reduction that is sufficient for weight loss and reduction in risk (unpublished data). The benefit would be larger among consumers who consume higher volumes, since these consumers are more likely to be overweight and appear to be more responsive to prices.7 Higher taxes would have greater benefits.

The revenue generated from a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would be considerable and could be used to help support childhood nutrition programs, obesity-prevention programs, or health care for the uninsured or to help meet general revenue needs. A national tax of 1 cent per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages would raise $14.9 billion in the first year alone.

This ship will sail, so let me restate my Bold Prediction from last April, made more apropos by the advent of Super Sunday:

BOLD PREDICTIONS: Within fifty years Coca Cola and the NFL will be the fodder of campfire stories meant to scare excitable pre-teens. It can't happen? Sixty years ago Frank and Dean were the Kings of Cool, smoking cigarettes live on national television; now they would get busted and the President of the United States is heckled in his own home for being a smoker.

If high school football were invented today, any school board listening to the injury rate and equipment expense would laugh out loud. It's days are numbered.

And Coke? Sales will be regulated as cigarettes are today, and sales to minors won't be legal. And someone somewhere will be charged with child abuse for giving a kid a Coke. Really.

In Australia, the UK and USA, per capita consumption of refined sucrose decreased by 23%, 10% and 20% respectively from 1980 to 2003. When all sources of nutritive sweeteners, including high fructose corn syrups, were considered, per capita consumption decreased in Australia (−16%) and the UK (−5%), but increased in the USA (+23%). In Australia, there was a reduction in sales of nutritively sweetened beverages by 64 million liters from 2002 to 2006 and a reduction in percentage of children consuming sugar-sweetened beverages between 1995 and 2007. The findings confirm an ―Australian Paradox‖—a substantial decline in refined sugars intake over the same timeframe that obesity has increased. The implication is that efforts to reduce sugar intake may reduce consumption but may not reduce the prevalence of obesity.

Nutrients 2011, 3, 491-504; doi:10.3390/nu3040491

YOU DON'T KNOW JACK: Let's flash back to Jack LaLanne making the case against "sugarholics", with the alcohol analogy.

You would think that in an information age, as TVs and cell phones become ubiquitous even among the lower classes, nanny impulses would be channeled more frequently into public education campaigns than into regulation. Doesn’t feel that way, though, does it? You get the calorie counts on fast-food menus now, but you also get moronic attempts to ban Happy Meals in San Francisco. Maybe one begets the other — i.e. precisely because it’s easier to put the word out about food and nutrition, the nanny-minded become more aware of the dangers of certain substances and feel obliged to press harder for regulation. Or maybe it’s a simple matter of health warnings being drowned out by an expanding galaxy of ads for the dangerous products. I don’t quite buy that theory, though: Cigarettes haven’t enjoyed ubiquitous advertising and the actual packs have carried warnings for nearly 50 years, but somehow even that degree of informed consent is lately being deemed insufficient, thus requiring actual photos of people with tracheotomies on the packs — even though virtually everyone above grade school levels knows that smokes are a cancer risk. The more access to information you have, the dumber you supposedly are, and therefore the more your choices have to be made for you by your superiors. Isn’t the future glorious?

Attention SCOTUS: Arguments against Obamacare start and end with the notion that if it becomes a permanent law, government will have license to meddle in American's daily lives beyond anything previously imagined.

It would be interesting to hear from Charles Murray, authorof "Coming Apart". As I recall, obesity and smoking are inversely correlated with education and income. One might argue that the unifying theme is impulse management and the ability to defer gratification. People who can grasp the long-term benefits of sitting in boring classrooms and saying 'no' to doughnuts may have a general flair for better decision making. Or, maybe fat drunk and stupid is a way to go through life...

More mental illness from the Liberal world. I lost 70 lbs in 2009 and kept almost all of it off. Ate less (especially processed sugar and flour)--alot less-- exercised more. I am personally outraged at the Liberal establishment making excuses for people who refuse to do that. Processed flour products are cheap, and because of skyrocketing oil/fuel prices fresh fruits, vegetables and beef are expensive (thanks'Bam and Bernanke), I understand that. But stop eating the chips and sugared drinks and walk around. OK. And drop this regulation fetish.

JiB, thanks to the EPA, bees may not be around too much longer. I think I published the link a few weeks ago. But I'll look for it again. It says the EPA has sided with the chemical people and it's killing the bees.

" In an interview with Jim Cramer, CNBC, Warren Buffett responds, "I would say that ethanol (from corn) is a relatively inefficient way of creating gasoline - gasoline equivalent, and it uses a lot of energy in the process of raising the corn that does it. And, as correctly pointed out, it has a by-product of raising agricultural products elsewhere." In light of the problems with converting corn into ethanol, the economic "law of substitution" is compelling for more sugar, less corn in fueling vehicles."

Ethanol is an environmentally driven additive more than an energy independence type consequence. But this is what you get from "activist" government. Just like using natural gas to power electric generating plants. The highest efficiencies in natural gas fueled combined cycle power plants is in the 55-60% range but are the exception. Using natural gas as a chemical processor such as in polymers you get close to 90%.

The point is that the governmetn always opts for the wrong application and use.

In case any of you are still wondering which way the wind is blowing, dont listen to talk, just observe how partisan democrat reps vote. A GOP bill to freeze pay to federal workers get a 2/3 majority when 72 !!!! Democrats vote with them. That is more than a 1/3 I believe of the Democrat remaining in the House ( today they will likely dwindle down ). Here:

The House on Wednesday evening handily approved a GOP proposal to extend the pay freeze for federal workers through 2013, despite the high hurdle for passage set by Republican leaders.

The House voted 309-117 in favor of the bill, easily clearing the two-thirds majority required for passage under a suspension of House rules. Republicans needed about 50 Democrats for passage, and the bill, H.R. 3835, was supported by 72 Democrats.

GMax-- I agree the 72 Dems voting to freeze fed pay demonstrates where the voters are. But the reality is it is just a show for voters; the senate won't do anything with this, so the 72 dems can tell AFSCME it was no big deal, bill was going nowhere. Now if we get a TP Congress and a POTUS Mitt, let's cut Fed pay 20% and cut 20% of Fed workers. Cut the fed wage bill about 40% and future pensions. Then we'd be doing something.

Just what I love, nanny state government from the UN, who I guess figures peacekeeping is just too much bother.

All this stems from an attitude that the people do not know what's good for them. Usually, it's depicted as annoying busybodies, who aren't particularly harmful. But this stuff is really pernicious, because it is so fundamentally antidemocratic.

I'd love to know if the sugar busybodies also oppose the drug war. Because so much of this kind of stuff is about regulating other people's pleasures (and go vegan, man) while keeping your own sacrosanct.

Actually, I would go farther than that. Cut pay and benifits by 40% (Federal workers bennies are an additional 70% over basic pay). I would give current workers the option of keeping their current pay, and giving up all benifits (they are now making more than enough to pay for their own health insurance and full fund their own retirement). Or, take a 40% pay cut and keep their bennies.

Cap pay (like flag officer pay is capped in the military), no Federal worker should make more than $100K.

Cut the federal work force by 40% over the next 4 years. Doing that by attition would be easy, if the other changes were implimented.

You inflict pay cuts, and attrition like that, you impact the economy significantly. And if you pay government workers less than the market value for their services, you will end up with a bunch of idiots running the show, or you will have a bunch of "private" companies outsourcing appropriately paid people to the government. (There is already a lot of that -- but it tend to be lower-paid individuals.)

Oh, one final thing... All regulations must be passed into law within 36 months, or they cease to be enforcable. EPA, OSHA, FDA, ect, would have to decide what regs were really important and which onces existed to simply justify more regulators and higher budgets.

Canes of sugar plants are "bagasse" and is usually used as a fuel for sugar processing. In Florida, down in the 'Glades there are a couple of electric generating plants that use bagasse in co-generation. Interestingly, the CO2 emitted from burning bagasse is equivalent to the CO2 the sugar cane absorbed during growing.

The regulatory reduction is a key part of it, as it would dramaticly reduce the cost of compliance with frivilous regulations, thus unchaining private enterprise, and producing sufficient ecnomic growth to absorb the influx of departing federal government workers.

Ranger is right about all these things (exact details of Fed pay can be bickered about, but he's got the funementals right). Since nuke plant safety, the catalytic converter and ABS, we've been in a world where environmental/safety regs are primarily self-serving to make the government a permanent part of the real economy, instead of legitimate regulation correcting health and safety externalities that can't be efficiently corrected by the market. basically it's bureaucrats keeping themselves paid -- and paid too well. Couple that with the grotesque Tax Code and the Fed leviathan is taking over a TRILLION Dollars out of the real economy every year. Ranger's right, SLASH it all. We'll all be better for it.

Gov. Daniels put his signature on the measure shortly after the Indiana state Senate passed it Wednesday morning on a 28-22 vote. A similar measure in 2011 failed when Democratic lawmakers prevented the state House from holding session by leaving the state. Subsequent polling showed that strategy to be very unpopular with the voters. This year, the Democrats could only use delaying tactics and now the legislation has become Indiana law.

You inflict pay cuts, and attrition like that, you impact the economy significantly.

Yes, by cutting federal spending, it will leave more money in the pockets of the private sector.

And if you pay government workers less than the market value for their services, you will end up with a bunch of idiots running the show, or you will have a bunch of "private" companies outsourcing appropriately paid people to the government.

We have a bunch of overpaid idiots running the show now, as far as I can tell. Better to have underpaid idiots.

Of course, I'd rather be more selective about it--eliminating some departments like Education entirely. But I'm not seeing much of a downside here.

I hope when we finally get around to major federal cost cutting, we do it by zero based budgeting--making cuts based on program necessity and effectiveness. Otherwise what happens is the worst most useless portions of the bureaucracy are barely touched by the cuts, but the productive, important parts are badly hurt.

Very interesting comparison. One thing he doesn't directly address is the toll of new regulations (and simply the threat of new regulations) on the recovery, which I think is a significant part of it as well.

--Of course, I'd rather be more selective about it--eliminating some departments like Education entirely. But I'm not seeing much of a downside here.--

Yep. California took the stupid way out (surprise, surprise) by keeping most of its employees but cutting everyone's pay. Most state workers aren't making a fortune so all you got was the same amount of deadwood, but quite disgruntled ones, many of whom are barely getting by and many of whom are now doing an even worse job than before.
Much better to leave their pay pretty much intact and cut loose excess employees.
Of course SEIU doesn't believe such a thing exists.

Ranger-- I can't prove this but IMHO, the subpar GDP recovery and D-E-D labor market are primarily caused by Obamacare being passed, EPA Regs AND THREATENED Carbon regs, Dept of Interior restricting oil drilling on Fed land and Deep Sea, and threatened tax increases. Those restraints on growth have killed business investment in human capital (jobs), and that destruction of business demand further restricts income growth and consumer confidence. The 2007 burst housing bubble and 2008 financial meltdown badly hurt the economy. Even if we were doing the right things it wouldnt be 2005 with 4+% unemployment. BUT-- everything 'Bam has done, especially making the regulatory burden unbearable, has given us a lousy GDP 'recovery' and a D-E-D labor market.

We used to used the word Betty for hot chicks around here, and I'm married to Betty, so yeah...Betty.

On another note my BP just pegged when I read an AP piece saying that F&F is now a power play between that nut sack Holder and Issa.

They are now apply the full force of the lie machine across the spectrum. The Afghanistan debacle announced yesterday, the MF scandal, where it is becoming ever more clear that Goldman and Morgan Stanley are co-conspirators; and a plethora, a plethora I say, of other scandals.

As to sugar, it's one more attempt to wave the shiny object and confuse the muddle.

NK, I think if you look at the employment graph, there is a point where the economy is heading for a V shaped employment curve, then suddenly dips back down and flattens out. I think that sharp reversal co-incides with the passage of Obamacare. Correlation is not causation, but its a good hit of where to look.

From my POV as a quasi-state employee, the coward bureaucrats will always cut services before they cut staff or staff pay. So if the directive comes down to cut budgets by X percent, they'll do it in a way that ensures a minimum of layoffs and a maximum decline in service quality.

So instead, tell every department they have to provide the identical level of service with X percent fewer people, and give them a short deadline to make the cuts so they can't do it solely by attrition. That's the only way I can see to get rid of deadwood.

But it will never happen.

If corporations were run like my organization, they would have gone out of business decades ago and/or the "leadership" would be in orange jumpsuits due to worse-than-Enron accounting fraud.

"This is one of the biggest things I'm going to be pushing back on this year, this notion that this is somehow class warfare, that we're trying to stir up envy," Obama said. "Nobody envies rich people, everybody wants to be rich. Everybody aspires to be rich, and everybody understands you've got work hard to be successful. That's the American way."

They just want to raise their taxes because they are so sweet and yummy.

if you pay government workers less than the market value for their services, you will end up with a bunch of idiots running the show

OMG. I almost fell off my chair laughing. I don't even know who the quote was from but I have a specific incidence in mind to show you idiots are already running the show.

A few years back, we took a PI case because the person injured was a worker's mother. She was hit by a car driven by a teenager while in a crosswalk. The driver was insured for $25k, the minimum in Texas. Her medical bills were well over $100k. We were merely helping her get the money from the insurance company to medicare, who was entitled to the $25k LESS ATTORNEY FEES. We waived our fees, sent a letter to medicare and asked them how they wanted us to forward the money to them. I swear, on a stack of bibles, it took me 6 months to get someone to just take the money. They read from a card every damn time I called them, and I quote, send us an itemized statement of your ATTORNEY FEES so we can authorize payment.

ranger-- I agree, the nascent recovery that began in late 2009 after TARP actually saved the banks and the banks paid it back, was stopped cold in summer 2010 by Obamcare, and the illegal drilling moratorium and the threatened tax increases etc. I am honest enough to say I can't prove it, but all of those factual correlations give me a strong opinion. And you know what-- if barry had done the right things-- the economy would be MUCH better and he'd be cruising to re-election. He checked all of the wrong boxes.

You can't just do a lot of drugs in high school and college, hand over a bunch of poorly organized scribbled notes to an unrepentant terrorist, and keep mentioning your skin color and expect to somehow end up with a seven- or eight-figure net worth.

GMAX - thanks for posting that. I re-posted it to a MI Firearm Site with a link from the article it came from (LUN). There are quite a few "union folks" on that site that cannot see the "forest through the trees".

The pressure on the Susan G. Komen For The Cure Foundation to reverse its decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings for poor people — a decision which has caused an uproar among women’s groups and on social media — is about to get significantly more intense. Nearly two dozen Senators are set to enter the fray.

I'm told that 22 Dem Senators have signed on to a toughly worded letter urging Komen to reverse its decision, which Komen has justified by citing a new rule prohibiting it from funding any group under investigation by the government.

PP's breast cancer screening consists of palpation, nothing more. I'll tell you what, I'll start classes, for pay, to teach women to give themselves self-examines, which is all they do, besides give a bunch of dinosaur lesbians a legal excuse to fondle young girl's breasts. No lesbians, no abortions, just one short class for say $15 per. Start up as soon as I can convince an equity capitalist to loan me the money for office space.

((Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a 'categorical pledge' were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April. ))

they will have to pry my apple pie a la mode out of my cold dead hands

Thanks for the link Charlie.
I doubt BSE does any overall harm with regards to unnecessary biopsies and no doubt in a few cases it can do some good which is why I said "more than likely".
But overall doesn't seem to be of much help.
Anecdotally, my wife's ob gyn missed her lump only a couple of months before I found it and considering its size and the rate at which cancer grows theoretically one of us could have found it a year or two before that as well.

Charlie, your link requires registration. But as I recall, the controversy about mammograms relates to the statistics suggesting that early detection doesn't make a difference 90% of the time. Either it's aggressive, in which case even the mammogram may be too late, or it's not, in which case detecting it by direct exam is early enough. Of course there are those other 10%.

I’m told that 22 Dem Senators have signed on to a toughly worded letter urging Komen to reverse its decision, which Komen has justified by citing a new rule prohibiting it from funding any group under investigation by the government. (This has conferred legitimacy and signficance on the probe into Planned Parenthood that has been launched by anti-abortion GOP Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida.)

Mrs, JiB is a big supporter of Susan B. Komen and runs one of the sports divisions for our Rally for the Cure event each year. She wasn't aware until last year about Komen giving money to PP. She burst a couple of veins.

The Lady who is our chairperson is a big time Lib who wasn't concerned but the Missus insisted on letting everyone know who was going to contribute to understand who they gave money to in case this would bother them.

I guess the Lady behind the letter is a one time candidate for Governor of Georgia who Sarah Palin endorsed. She is now a VP at Komen. But then the lady who founded Komen is a long time registered Republican if memory serves me correct.

jimmyk, your recollection matches mine--Some years ago a doctor wrote a fantastic article in the Atlantic which explained this very well. It was one of the only medical articles in a popular media that I ever found to be useful reading.
He made it clear that early detection or not was less significant than the aggressiveness of the tumor and that mammograms often detected such small tumors that when--if they were benign-- probably caused a great deal of needless surgery and worry--Re self detection--it also had serious limits--by the time you felt it if it was aggressive, it was too late to avoid the likelihood that it would be fatal. Moreover, for all the marching and commercialized pink ribbon appeals,there was not a shortage of money for research, there was just such a complex medical mystery that more time was needed before we changed the odds which had not changed over the years despite huge expenditures.

Hi Narciso, besides having a spate of problems with my internet service provider, service interrupting at the worst possible times, I've been busy working on a home refreshment project involving large amounts of white eggshell paint ... I hope you are having more fun thanI am ;)

hello Porchlight, is it well with you?
I hope you are not depressed about Romney winning FL

--But as I recall, the controversy about mammograms relates to the statistics suggesting that early detection doesn't make a difference 90% of the time.--

jimmy,
There's something to that but not a lot.
Early detection makes all the difference most of the time. If even the most aggressive tumor is detected before it has infiltrated surrounding tissue or has sent cells beyond the sentinel lymph nodes breast cancer is easily curable.
The problems with mammograms arise largely from false positives and the increased risk of mammogram induced cancers from the radiation exposure to the entire population.
The increased risk for the 90% of women who will never get it is pretty tiny if they have mammograms. The increased risk for the 10% who will develop it and don't do mammograms is very large indeed. Ask my wife.
Public and recommended medical policy have to take into account the whole population of course but I'd be loath to recommend any woman over 40 not to do one at least every couple of years.

If they release the 5 from Gitmo, I want to walk to my next flight unobstructed. Can't we tie these things together. If there is no danger we can close TSA. The fact that we don't is compelling evidence of surrender.